Megalith comparisons and Indo-European language Origin
Ancient Secrets of the Lost Ararat Civilization | Day 1 - Van Museum, Matthew LaCroix, Paul Wallis
Join Paul Wallis and I for Day 1 of the Ayanis Expedition as we explore the Van Museum in Turkey for ancient secrets and artifacts from the Lost Ararat Civilization. What will we find...and how far back could it push the timeline of human civilization?
Video
NEW Discoveries to REWRITE History? T-Pillars | Ancient Temples, Matthew LaCroix, Will John
History changing archaeological discoveries are being made around Lake Van, Turkey of a previously unknown civilization that could be the MISSING key to ancient cultures around the world. What could these artifacts and discoveries do to empower and change the narrative of history in the future? Will John joins me to find answers.
Video
Ancient Lost Civilization | Kef Kalesi, Turkey - Megaliths, Artifacts - Matthew LaCroix, Paul Wallis
Video
Ancient Megalithic Cavustepe - Turkey | Major Discoveries of a Lost Civilization - Matthew LaCroix
Video
Lost Ararat Civilization FULL Presentation | Conscious Life Expo 2024 - Matthew LaCroix
Video
Ancient Secrets of Anatolia | Lost High Technology - Matthew LaCroix, Paul Wallis, 5th Kind TV
Video
Secrets of Ayanis Kalesi, Turkey - Matthew LaCroix, Paul Wallis - V2
Video
Peru
Cuzco
Lake Titicaca
The basalt megaliths near lake Van that were built by the Ararat people are similar to the ones found in Peru as mentioned by the narrator himself in the videos. These perfectly shaped megaliths differ from other structures nearby that were built by a later culture referred to as the Urartian. In 2018, I mentioned before the Urartian in the thread "Gunung Padang Megalithic Site, who built it?" from East Bound forum. The 2018 article that I posted did state that the earliest Indo-European language originated from the Urartian in Armenia around 5,000 B.C. which later on spread to Europe and made contact with the over 12,000 year old Basque (Euskara) speaking Europeans. Today, Indo-European language is the largest language family in the world with over 400 languages and there are over 3 billion speakers.
Could the Ararat people who built these perfectly shaped megaliths be the same ancient builders found in Peru referred to as the Paracas people? Possibly the same or are we looking at two different cultures altogether? If they are the same culture, then why would they migrate halfway around the world? They likely migrated to Peru on purpose since the location itself has plentiful of granite and andesite quarries available. And several megaliths were also built nearby Lake Titicaca.
In total, 46% of the world's population (3.2 billion people) speaks an Indo-European language as a first language—by far the highest of any language family.
The quest to uncover the origins of the Indo-European language family has intrigued scholars for centuries, drawing together linguists, historians, and geneticists in a collaborative effort. In recent years, genetic and linguistic studies have made significant advances in analyzing the migrations of ancient populations linked to the Indo-European languages. Among the latest contributions is the pre-print publication “The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans” by Lazaridis and colleagues, representing a culmination of their research spanning over a decade.
One notable finding from this work is the identification of a genetic cluster termed the Caucasus Lower Volga (CLV) cline, a population inhabiting the region from the North Caucasus foothills to the Lower Volga. This genetic cluster appears to be the ancestor of the early Indo-European communities like the Bronze Age Anatolians and Yamnaya, an Early Bronze Age society (3300-2700 BC) that expanded across the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe, playing a significant role in spreading Indo-European languages throughout Europe and Asia.
However, unlike most Europeans, the Anatolian speakers did not acquire their language and genetics directly from the Yamnaya, but rather from the ancestral component of the CLV cline through Armenia, suggesting a strong possibility that the Indo-Anatolian languages originated in the Armenian Highlands.
It’s worth highlighting that Lazaridis et al. (2024) introduce a different terminology for the language family. They classify Indo-European as a subset of a broader macro family termed “Indo-Anatolian.”
“An alternative terminology, which we use here, names the entire linguistic group “Indo-Anatolian” (IA) and uses IE to refer to the set of related non-Anatolian languages.”
Another significant revelation was the discovery of the deeper ancestry of the people from the CLV cline who trace about half of their genetics from Neolithic Armenia. The influx of genetic material from the South Caucasus into the Steppe occurred on multiple occasions, with the first wave associated with Palaeolithic Caucasian Hunter gatherer ancestry, and another with Armenia Neolithic ancestry from sites like Aknashen and Masis Blur.
“Eneolithic people of the North Caucasus-Lower Volga region had a mix of Caucasus Neolithic (Aknashen) and Lower Volga Eneolithic (Berezhnovka) ancestry. Migrations from [Armenia] to the Volga, Dnipro-Don and Caucasus-Anatolia regions spread one or both of these ancestries, admixing with Eastern hunter-gatherers (Lebyazhinka), with Dnipro-Don hunter-gatherers, and with Caucasus-Mesopotamian (Masis Blur, Çayönü) populations.”
According to Lazaridis, the genetic lineage of the CLV migrated to Central Anatolia through an eastern route. Neolithic Armenians, connected to the Aknashen ancestry, journeyed to the North Caucasus around 6000 BC. There, they intermixed with locals of Northern descent, giving rise to the CLV cline. By around 4000 BC, these individuals began expanding both northward and southward. In the north, they contributed approximately 80% to the genetic makeup of the Yamnaya people, while in the south, they integrated with the local population in Armenia, as evidenced by genetic remnants found in sites like Areni I. Throughout the Bronze Age, these individuals further mingled with those from the Mesopotamia-Caucasus region, eventually migrating towards central Anatolia. This movement led to the establishment of prominent kingdoms, including those of the Hittites and Luwians.
These findings lend considerable weight to the idea that the origins of this influential language group can be traced back to the ancient landscapes of Armenia, reshaping our understanding of early human migrations and cultural interactions.
“A Caucasus-West Asian origin of Indo-Anatolian origins is strengthened by the finding of early migrations from the Caucasus into the Volga/Don-Dnipro Eneolithic populations followed by later Maikop/Armenian Neolithic ancestry into the ancestors of the Yamnaya. This hypothesis also maps to the transformation of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age central/western Anatolia which saw half to all its Neolithic population replaced.”
If the origins of the Proto-Indo Anatolian language family are pushed further back in time, the probability of Armenia being the original homeland becomes even more plausible. Notably, a recent linguistic study by P. Heggarty et al. (2023) has meticulously dated the emergence of Indo-European languages to approximately 8000 years ago. This timeframe aligns seamlessly with the historical expansion of Armenian populations into the steppe region, providing additional support for the Armenian hypothesis regarding the formation of the CLV cline.
Heggarty et al. present a database of 109 modern and 52 time-calibrated historical Indo-European languages, which they analyzed with models of Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Their results suggest an emergence of Indo-European languages around 8000 years before present. This is a deeper root date than previously thought, and it fits with an initial origin south of the Caucasus followed by a branch northward into the Steppe region. These findings lead to a “hybrid hypothesis” that reconciles current linguistic and ancient DNA evidence from both the eastern Fertile Crescent (as a primary source) and the steppe (as a secondary homeland).
Another recent linguistic study by Yang et. al. (2024) published in Nature magazine agrees with these results. The paper introduces a novel approach, language velocity field estimation, to uncover language dispersal trajectories and centers without relying on phylogenetic trees. By applying this method to agricultural language families, the study reveals that language dispersal aligns with population movement routes inferred from ancient DNA and archaeological evidence.
The conclusion favours the “Armenian Highlands” origin hypothesis of Indo-European languages rather than the alternative competing hypothesis of Pontic steppe region origin.
Our results show that the dispersal trajectories of these languages are primarily compatible with population movement routes inferred from ancient DNA and archaeological materials, and their dispersal centres are geographically proximate to ancient homelands of agricultural or Neolithic cultures. Our findings highlight that the agricultural languages dispersed alongside the demic diffusions and cultural spreads during the past 10,000 years. We expect that language velocity field estimation could aid the spatial analysis of language evolution and further branch out into the studies of demographic and cultural dynamics.
In conclusion, while the quest to uncover the origins of the Indo-European language family remains ongoing, the convergence of genetic and linguistic evidence increasingly points towards the Armenian Highlands as a crucial nexus in the early development and dispersal of these languages. As our understanding continues to evolve, bridging the gaps in data will be essential in painting a comprehensive picture of our prehistoric past.
The Basque language, or Euskara, is believed to be older than 12,000 years old, making it pre-Indo-European and older than most languages in Europe. Here's some information about the history and origins of the Basque language:
Early evidence
The earliest evidence of the Basque language is the Hand of Irulegi, an inscription found in 2022 that dates back to the first century BCE. The inscription includes a word that is similar to the Basque word zorioneko, which means "of good fortune".
Cave paintings
The use of Basque vocabulary in prehistoric cave paintings in the Basque Country suggests that a form of Basque was spoken by the people who created them, possibly as far back as 15,000 years ago.
Theories about origins
There are several theories about the origins of the Basque language, including:
Neolithic settlers: The Basque language may have arrived with the advance of agriculture around 6,000 years ago.
Iberian subgroup: The Basque language may be related to the Iberian language, which was spoken in the southeastern Iberian Peninsula.
Standardization
In 1968, the Basque Language Academy, Euskaltzaindia, standardized the Basque language as Euskara Batua, which is used in education, administration, literature, and the media.
What language is closest to Basque?
Aquitanian
Modern Basque, a descendant or close relative of Aquitanian and Proto-Basque, is the only pre-Indo-European language that is extant in western Europe.
Urartu is shown on the 3,000 year old Babylonian Map, the oldest map ever found. The Babylonian Map is described as a schematic map. This map was posted in 2018 on the thread "Gunung Padang Megalithic Site, who built it?" in the East Bound Forum.
The map is circular with two boundary circles.Cuneiformscript labels all locations inside the circular map, as well as a few regions outside. The two circles represent a body of water labelledidmaratum"bitter river", the salt sea.Babylonis marked north of center; parallel lines at the bottom seem to represent thesouthern marshes, and a curved line coming from the north-northeast appear to represent theZagros Mountains.[10][11][12][13][14]
Drawing byB. MeissnerinBabylonien und Assyrien,1925.
There are seven small interior circles within the perimeter of the circle, appearing to represent seven cities. Seven or eight triangular sections outside the water circle represent named "regions" (nagu). The descriptions for five of them have survived.[4]
13.Babylon(Akkadian:tin.tirki), divided byEuphrates 14 – 17. Ocean (salt water,Akkadian:idmar-ra-tum) 19 – 22 (and 18?). outer "regions" (nagu): 18. "Great Wall, 6 leagues in between, where the Sun is not seen" (Akkadian:BÀD.GU.LA 6 bēru ina bi-rit a-šar Šamaš la innammaru). – The "Great Wall" may be a mountain ridge, the "6 leagues in between" probably refer to the width of the Ocean.[15] 19. "nagu, 6 leagues in between" 20. "[nag]u[..." (rest of text missing) 21. "[na]gu[..." (rest of text missing) 22. "nagu, 8 leagues in between" 23. No description. (a city in Assyria?) 24, 25. No description. (cities in Habban?)
Urartu extended from the Euphrates in the west 850 km2 to the region west of Ardabil in Iran, and 500 km2 from Lake Çıldır near Ardahan in Turkey to the region of Rawandiz in Iraqi Kurdistan.[7] The kingdom emerged in the mid-9th century BC and dominated the Armenian Highlands in the 8th and 7th centuries BC.[8] Urartu frequently warred with Assyria and became, for a time, the most powerful state in the Near East.[8] Weakened by constant conflict, it was eventually conquered, either by the IranianMedes in the early 6th century BC or by Cyrus the Great in the middle of the 6th century BC.[14][15] Archaeologically, it is noted for its large fortresses and sophisticated metalwork.[8]
Various names were given to the geographic region and the polity that emerged in the region.
Urartu/Ararat: The name Urartu (Armenian: Ուրարտու; Assyrian: māt Urarṭu;[6]Babylonian: Urashtu; Hebrew: אֲרָרָט Ararat) comes from Assyrian sources. Shalmaneser I (1263–1234 BC) recorded a campaign in which he subdued the entire territory of "Uruatri".[17][18] The Shalmaneser text uses the name Urartu to refer to a geographical region, not a kingdom, and names eight "lands" contained within Urartu (which at the time of the campaign were still disunited). The Assyrian Uruatri seems to correspond with the Azzi of contemporaneous Hittite texts.[19][20]Urartu is cognate with the Biblical Ararat, Akkadian Urashtu, and Armenian Ayrarat.[21][22] In addition to referring to the famous Biblical highlands, Ararat also appears as the name of a kingdom in Jeremiah 51:27, mentioned together with Minni and Ashkenaz. Mount Ararat is located approximately 120 kilometres (75 mi) north of the kingdom's former capital, though the identification of the biblical "mountains of Ararat" with the Mt. Ararat is a modern identification based on postbiblical tradition.[23]
Biainili/Biaini: The Urartian kings, starting during the co-reign of Ishpuini and his son, Menua, referred to their kingdom as Biainili, or "those of the land of Bia" (sometimes transliterated as Biai or Bias).[24][25] Whoever or whatever "Bia" was remains unclear. It is not to be confused with the nearby land "Biane", which likely became the Armenian Basean (Greek: Phasiane).
Kingdom of Van (Վանի թագավորութիւն): A widespread belief is that the Urartian toponymBiainili (or Biaineli),[26][27] which was possibly pronounced as Vanele (or Vanili), became Van (Վան) in Old Armenian.[28] The names "Kingdom of Van" and "Vannic Kingdom" were applied to Urartu as a result of this theory and the fact that the Urartian capital, Tushpa, was located near the city of Van and the lake of the same name.
Nairi: Boris Piotrovsky wrote that the Urartians first appear in history in the 13th century BC as a league of tribes or countries which did not yet constitute a unitary state. In the Assyrian annals the term Uruatri (Urartu) as a name for this league was superseded during a considerable period of years by the term "land of Nairi".[29] More recent scholarship suggests that Uruatri was a district of Nairi, and perhaps corresponded to the Azzi of contemporaneous Hittite texts.[30][31] Although early rulers of the Kingdom of Urartu referred to their domain as "Nairi" (instead of the later Biainili), some scholars believe that Urartu and Nairi were separate polities. The Assyrians seem to have continued to refer to Nairi as a distinct entity for decades after the establishment of Urartu until Nairi was totally absorbed by Assyria and Urartu in the 8th century BC.[32]
Khaldini: Carl Ferdinand Friedrich Lehmann-Haupt (1910) believed that the people of Urartu called themselves Khaldini after the god Ḫaldi.[33] This theory has been overwhelmingly rejected by modern scholars.[34]
Shurili: Linguists John Greppin and Igor M. Diakonoff argued that the Urartians referred to themselves as Shurele (sometimes transliterated as Shurili or Šurili, possibly pronounced as Surili), a name mentioned within the royal titles of the kings of Urartu (e.g. "the king of Šuri-lands”).[35][36] The word Šuri has been variously theorized as originally referring to chariots, lances or swords (perhaps related to the Armenian word sur (սուր) meaning "sword"). Others have connected Shurili to an as yet undetermined geographical region, such as Shupria (perhaps an attempt by the ruling dynasty to associate themselves with the Hurrians), Cappadocia,[37] the Ararat plain,[38] or the entire world.[36]
Armenia: In the late 6th–early 5th century BC, with the emergence of the Satrapy of Armenia in the region, Urartu (Urashtu in Babylonian) was used as a synonym for Armenia (Old PersianArmina) in the trilingual Behistun Inscription.[39] The name Ararat was translated as Armenia in the 1st century AD in historiographical works[40] and very early Latin translations of the Bible,[41] as well as the Books of Kings[42] and Isaiah in the Septuagint. Some English language translations, including the King James Version,[43] follow the Septuagint translation of Ararat as Armenia.[44]Shupria (Akkadian: Armani-Subartu from the 3rd millennium BC) is believed to have originally been a Hurrian or Mitanni state that was subsequently annexed into the Urartian confederation. Shupria is often mentioned in conjunction with a district in the area called Arme or Armani and the nearby districts of Urme and Inner Urumu. It is possible that the name Armenia originates in Armini, Urartian for "inhabitant of Arme" or "Armean country".[45][21][22] The Arme tribe of Urartian texts may have been the Urumu, who in the 12th century BC attempted to invade Assyria from the north with their allies the Mushki and the Kaskians. The Urumu apparently settled in the vicinity of Sason, lending their name to the regions of Arme and the nearby Urme and Inner Urumu.[46]
The name form of ArmeniaURARTU appears in 2 Assyrian inscriptions from the 9th century BC. Urartologists identify with this name form the land names mat U-RU-A Ţ -RI mentioned by Shalmaneser I (at the beginning of XIII century) and mat U-RA Ţ -RI mentioned by Adad-nirari II (at the end of X century).
The name forms URARTU and Ararat differ by one vowel (the vowel “a” is missing between the consonants r and t in the URARTU reading). And as the data in the table shows, it is the result of the misunderstanding that the cuneiform scholars who read the name of the country took the readings ar and ar2 of the AR and UB cuneiform signs, respectively, and ignored their readings ara8 and ara2․
On the famous Babylonian map representing the ancient world (in the 8th century BC) (see figure 1), in the inscription of the Assyrian king Nabopolassar (in 626-604 BC) and in the Behistun inscription of the Achaemenid Iranian king Darius I (in 522-486 BC), the name of Armenia is presented in the form UR-AŠ 2 -TU= URAŠTU. Some authors (S. Yeremyan, B.Piotrovsky, I. Dyakonoff, U. Horovits and others) distinguish URAŠTU from URARTU, but consider them equivalent names. In order for the writing form URAŠTU to be identical with URARTU=Ararat, it is necessary for the AŠ2 cuneiform sign to have the reading ru/ra.[47]
There is no direct evidence in existing cuneiform dictionaries that the AŠ 2 cuneiform sign has such readings. However, there are a number of side data that confirm the existence of these readings of the AŠ 2 cuneiform. The reading aš 2 of the cuneiform sign AŠ 2 was expressed by the cuneiform AŠ in the cuneiform dictionaries (AŠ 2 = AŠ). And the cuneiform AŠ has 3 ru readings.
The reading aš 2 of the cuneiform AŠ 2 was expressed by the cuneiform AŠ in the cuneiform dictionaries (AŠ 2 = AŠ). And the cuneiform AŠ has 3 ru readings: ru-u 2=ru 3 =AŠ (SA 126, Ea II 59 and so on). Therefore, it can be assumed that the cuneiform AŠ 2 should also have ru reading.
The phonetic equivalence r, l = š is frequently noticed in the Akkadian language․ For example išu = irdu = « foundation, establishment», irt ā nu = išt ā nu = «with big breasts», p ā štu = p ā ltu = «axe», išt ā nu = ilt ā nu = « the north» and so on. From the equivalence of Akkadian r=š, it follows that the readings aš 2 and aša 2 of the cuneiform AŠ 2 can also express the phonetic values ar and ara. And from all of this comes the identity of the writing forms URAŠTU and URARTU, especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area.[47]
Finally, there are examples which simply point out that the cuneiform AŠ 2 has ru reading. So, the cuneiform MAŠ=« goat» has the meaning «son, cub» and is written ma-aš 2 = MAŠ = ma-ru 3 = m ā ru = «son, cub» (A I/6 97), where the syllable ru 3 is the reading of the cuneiform AŠ. Therefore, it follows from the equation ma-aš 2 = ma-ru 3 = "cub, son" that the reading ru can be attributed to the symbol AŠ 2. After these clarifications, if we return to the writing form Ur-aš 2 -tu=Ur-aša 2 -tu, then we can present it in the form Ura-ru x -tu = Urarut, which is identical to the name forms read Ararat in the table above. Now let's move on to our main problem, try to find the Armenian etymology of the name Ararat (=URARTU) and see from which historical times it was written down.[47]
Urartu reemerged in Assyrian language inscriptions in the ninth century BC as a powerful northern rival to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The Nairi states and tribes became unified kingdom under King Arame of Urartu (c. 860–843 BC), whose capitals, first at Sugunia and then at Arzashkun, were captured by the Assyrians under the Neo-Assyrian emperor Shalmaneser III.
Urartologist Paul Zimansky speculated that the Urartians, or at least their ruling family after Arame, may have emigrated northwest into the Lake Van region from their religious capital of Musasir.[48] According to Zimansky, the Urartian ruling class were few in number and governed over an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse population. Zimansky went so far as to suggest that the kings of Urartu might have come from various ethnic backgrounds themselves.[49]
Growth
Fragment of a bronze helmet from Argishti I's era. The "tree of life", popular among the ancient societies, is depicted. The helmet was discovered during the excavations of the fortress Of Teyshebaini on Karmir-Blur (Red Hill).
Assyria fell into a period of temporary stagnation for decades during the first half of the 9th century BC, which had aided Urartu's growth. Within a short time it became one of the largest and most powerful states in the Near East.[49]
Sarduri I (c. 832–820 BC), the son of Lutipri, established a new dynasty and successfully resisted Assyrian attacks from the south led by Shalmaneser III, consolidated the military power of the state, and moved the capital to Tushpa (modern Van, Turkey, on the shore of Lake Van). His son, Ispuini (c. 820–800 BC) annexed the neighbouring state of Musasir, which became an important religious centre of the Urartian Kingdom, and introduced the cult of Ḫaldi.[49]
Ispuini was also the first Urartian king to write in the Urartian language (previous kings left records written in Akkadian).[49] He made his son Sarduri II viceroy. After conquering Musasir, Ispuini was in turn attacked by Shamshi-Adad V. His co-regent and subsequent successor, Menua (c. 800–785 BC) also enlarged the kingdom greatly and left inscriptions over a wide area. During Ispuini's and Menua's joint rule, they shifted from referring to their territory as Nairi, instead opting for Bianili.[49]
Urartu reached the highest point of its military might under Menua's son Argishti I (c. 785–760 BC), becoming one of the most powerful kingdoms of ancient Near East. Argishti I added more territories along the Aras and Lake Sevan, and frustrated Shalmaneser IV's campaigns against him. Argishti also founded several new cities, most notably Erebuni Fortress in 782 BC. 6600 prisoners of war from Hatti and Supani were settled in the new city.[50][51]
Niche and base for a destroyed Urartian stele, Van citadel, 1973.
At its height, the Urartu kingdom stretched north beyond the Aras and Lake Sevan, encompassing present-day Armenia and even the southern part of present-day Georgia almost to the shores of the Black Sea; west to the sources of the Euphrates; east to present-day Tabriz, Lake Urmia, and beyond; and south to the sources of the Tigris.[citation needed]
Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria defeated Sarduri II of Urartu in the first year of his reign (745 BC). There the Assyrians found horsemen and horses, tamed as colts for riding, that were unequalled in the south, where they were harnessed to Assyrian war-chariots.[52]
Checkpoints
Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west.[53]
Decline and recuperation
In 714 BC, the Urartian kingdom suffered heavily from Cimmerian raids and the campaigns of Sargon II. The main temple at Musasir was sacked, and the Urartian king Rusa I was crushingly defeated by Sargon II at Lake Urmia. He subsequently committed suicide in shame.[54]
Rusa's son Argishti II (714–685 BC) restored Urartu's position against the Cimmerians, however it was no longer a threat to Assyria and peace was made with the new king of Assyria Sennacherib in 705 BC. This, in turn, helped Urartu enter a long period of development and prosperity, which continued through the reign of Argishti's son Rusa II (685–645 BC).
After Rusa II, however, Urartu grew weaker under constant attacks from Cimmerian and Scythian invaders. As a result, it became dependent on Assyria, as evidenced by Rusa II's son Sarduri III (645–635 BC) referring to the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal as his "father".[55][56]
According to Urartian epigraphy, Sarduri III was followed by two kings—Rusa III (also known as Rusa Erimenahi) (620–609 BC) and his son, Rusa IV (609–590 or 585 BC). There is speculation that Rusa III's father, Erimena, may have been a king as well, possibly ruling from 635 to 620 BC, but little is known about him. It is possible that Rusa III established a new dynasty and that his father, Erimena, had not been king.[57][58]
Late during the 7th century BC (during or after Sarduri III's reign), Urartu was invaded by Scythians and their allies—the Medes. In 612 BC, the Median king Cyaxares the Great together with Nabopolassar of Babylon and the Scythians conquered Assyria after it had been irreversibly weakened by civil war. The Medes then took over the Urartian capital of Van in 590 BC, effectively ending the sovereignty of Urartu.[59][60] However, some historians believe that Urartu survived until the middle of the 6th century BC and was eventually destroyed by Cyrus the Great.[15] Many Urartian ruins of the period show evidence of destruction by fire.
The Kingdom of Van was destroyed in 590 BC[61] and by the late 6th century, the Satrapy of Armenia had replaced it.[62] Little is known of what happened to the region between the fall of the Kingdom of Van and the appearance of the Satrapy of Armenia. According to historian Touraj Daryaee, during the Armenian rebellion against the Persian king Darius I in 521 BC, some of the personal and topographic names attested in connection with Armenia or Armenians were of Urartian origin, suggesting that Urartian elements persisted within Armenia after its fall.[63] In the Behistun Inscription (c. 522 BC) refer to Armenia and Armenians as synonyms of Urartu and Urartians.[39] The toponym Urartu did not disappear, however, as the name of the province of Ayrarat in the center of the Kingdom of Armenia is believed to be its continuum.[64]
Urartian royal tomb. Van citadel, 1973
As the Armenian identity developed in the region, the memory of Urartu faded and disappeared.[65] Parts of its history passed down as popular stories and were preserved in Armenia, as written by Movses Khorenatsi in the form of garbled legends[66][67] in his 5th century book History of Armenia, where he speaks of a first Armenian Kingdom in Van which fought wars against the Assyrians. Khorenatsi's stories of these wars with Assyria would help in the rediscovery of Urartu.[68]
According to Herodotus, the Alarodians (Alarodioi) were part of the 18th Satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire and formed a special contingent in the grand army of Xerxes I.[69] Some scholars have tried to link the Alarodians to Urartians, suggesting that Alarodian was a variation of the name Urartian/Araratian. According to this theory, the Urartians of the 18th Satrapy were subsequently absorbed into the Armenian nation.[70] Modern historians, however, have cast doubt on the Alarodian connection to the Urartians.[71]
In a study published in 2017,[72] the complete mitochondrial genomes of 4 ancient skeletons from Urartu were analyzed alongside other ancient populations found in modern-day Armenia and Artsakh spanning 7,800 years. The study shows that modern-day Armenians are the people who have the least genetic distance from those ancient skeletons. As well, some scholars asserted that the Urartians are the most easily identifiable ancestors of the Armenians.[73][74][75][76]
Urartu comprised an area of approximately 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2), extending from the Euphrates in the West to Lake Urmia in the East and from the Caucasus Mountains south towards the Zagros Mountains in northern Iraq.[8] More specifically, Urartu was an area directly surrounded by the mountain chains of the eastern Pontus at the north, the Lesser Caucasus at to the northeast, and the Taurus mountains at the south.[77] It was centred around Lake Van, which is located in present-day eastern Anatolia.[78]
At its apogee, Urartu stretched from the borders of northern Mesopotamia to the southern Caucasus, including present-day Turkey, Nakhchivan,[79] Armenia and southern Georgia (up to the river Kura). The Taurus mountains also served as a natural barrier against southern threats, particularly from the Assyrians.[77] Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others.
Discovery
A Urartian Bulanık Stele, Bitlis Ahlat Museum.Arinçkus Argishti I Stele belonging to the Urartian King Argishti I, dated between 785 BC and 756 BC, Bitlis Ahlat MuseumA Urartian cauldron, in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, AnkaraHead of a Bull, Urartu, 8th century BC. This head was attached to the rim of an enormous cauldron similar to the one shown above. Walters Art Museum collections.Silver bucket from Urartu in the Museum zu Allerheiligen in Schaffhausen Switzerland, allegedly from the tomb of Prince Inuspua, 810 BC
Urartian inscriptions were found in Kepenek Castle, located on a hill near the center of Muş, and in the Alazlı.[80] Inspired by the writings of the medieval Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi (who had described Urartian works in Van and attributed them to the legendary Ara the Beautiful and Queen Semiramis), the French scholar Antoine-Jean Saint-Martin suggested that his government send Friedrich Eduard Schulz, a German professor, to the Van area in 1827 on behalf of the French Oriental Society.[81] Schulz discovered and copied numerous cuneiform inscriptions, partly in Assyrian and partly in a hitherto unknown language. Schulz also discovered the Kelishin stele, bearing an Assyrian-Urartian bilingual inscription, located on the Kelishin pass on the current Iraqi-Iranian border. A summary account of his initial discoveries was published in 1828. Schulz and four of his servants were murdered by Kurds in 1829 near Başkale. His notes were later recovered and published in Paris in 1840. In 1828, the British Assyriologist Henry Creswicke Rawlinson had attempted to copy the inscription on the Kelishin stele, but failed because of the ice on the stele's front side. The German scholar R. Rosch made a similar attempt a few years later, but he and his party were attacked and killed.
In the late 1840s Sir Austen Henry Layard examined and described the Urartian rock-cut tombs of Van Castle, including the Argishti chamber. From the 1870s, local residents began to plunder the Toprakkale ruins, selling its artefacts to European collections. In the 1880s this site underwent a poorly executed excavation organised by Hormuzd Rassam on behalf of the British Museum. Almost nothing was properly documented.
The first systematic collection of Urartian inscriptions, and thus the beginning of Urartology as a specialized field dates to the 1870s, with the campaign of Sir Archibald Henry Sayce. The German engineer Karl Sester, discoverer of Mount Nemrut, collected more inscriptions in 1890/1. Waldemar Belck visited the area in 1891, discovering the Rusa stele. A further expedition planned for 1893 was prevented by Turkish-Armenian hostilities. Belck together with Lehmann-Haupt visited the area again in 1898/9, excavating Toprakkale. On this expedition, Belck reached the Kelishin stele, but he was attacked by Kurds and barely escaped with his life. Belck and Lehmann-Haupt reached the stele again in a second attempt, but were again prevented from copying the inscription by weather conditions. After another assault on Belck provoked the diplomatic intervention of Wilhelm II, Sultan Abdul Hamid II agreed to pay Belck a sum of 80,000 gold marks in reparation. During World War I, the Lake Van region briefly fell under Russian control. In 1916, the Russian scholars Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr and Iosif Abgarovich Orbeli, excavating at the Van fortress, uncovered a four-faced stele carrying the annals of Sarduri II. In 1939 Boris Piotrovsky excavated Karmir Blur, discovering Teišebai, the city of the god of war, Teišeba. Excavations by the American scholars Kirsopp and Silva Lake in 1938-40 were cut short by World War II, and most of their finds and field records were lost when a German submarine torpedoed their ship, the SS Athenia. Their surviving documents were published by Manfred Korfmann in 1977.
A new phase of excavations began after the war. Excavations were at first restricted to Soviet Armenia. The fortress of Karmir Blur, dating from the reign of Rusa II, was excavated by a team headed by Boris Piotrovsky, and for the first time the excavators of a Urartian site published their findings systematically. Beginning in 1956 Charles A. Burney identified and sketch-surveyed many Urartian sites in the Lake Van area and, from 1959, a Turkish expedition under Tahsin Özgüç excavated Altintepe and Arif Erzen.
In the late 1960s, Urartian sites in northwest Iran were excavated. In 1976, an Italian team led by Mirjo Salvini finally reached the Kelishin stele, accompanied by a heavy military escort. The Gulf War then closed these sites to archaeological research. Oktay Belli resumed excavation of Urartian sites on Turkish territory: in 1989 Ayanis, a 7th-century BC fortress built by Rusas II of Urartu, was discovered 35 km north of Van. In spite of excavations, only a third to a half of the 300 known Urartian sites in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Armenia have been examined by archaeologists (Wartke 1993). Without protection, many sites have been plundered by local residents searching for treasure and other saleable antiquities.
On 12 November 2017, it was announced that archaeologists in Turkey had discovered the ruins of a Urartian castle during underwater excavations around Lake Van. The castle dated to the 8th or 7th centuries BC.[82]
The economic structure of Urartu was similar to other states of the ancient world, especially Assyria. The state was heavily dependent on agriculture, which required centralized irrigation. These works were managed by kings, but implemented by free inhabitants and possibly slave labour provided by prisoners. Royal governors, influential people and, perhaps, free peoples had their own allotments. Individual territories within the state had to pay taxes the central government: grain, horses, bulls, etc. In peacetime, Urartu probably led an active trade with Assyria, providing cattle, horses, iron and wine.
Agriculture in Urartu
Part of iron pitchfork, found near Lake Van and Iron plowshare, found during excavations in Rusahinili (Toprakkale).
According to archaeological data, farming on the territory of Urartu developed from the Neolithic, even in the 3rd millennium BC. In the Urartian age, agriculture was well developed and closely related to Assyrian methods on the selection of cultures and methods of processing.[83] From cuneiform sources, it is known that in Urartu grew wheat, barley, sesame, millet, and emmer, and cultivated gardens and vineyards. Many regions of the Urartu state required artificial irrigation, which has successfully been organized by the rulers of Urartu in the heyday of the state. In several regions remain ancient irrigation canals, constructed by Urartu, mainly during the Argishti I and Menua period, some of which are still used for irrigation.
Bronze figurine of the winged goddess Tushpuea, with suspension hook
There is a number of remains of sturdy stone architecture, as well as some mud brick, especially when it has been burnt, which helps survival. Stone remains are mainly fortresses and walls, with temples and mausolea, and many rock-cut tombs. The style, which developed regional variations, shows a distinct character, partly because of the greater use of stone compared to neighbouring cultures. The typical temple was square, with stone walls as thick as the open internal area but using mud brick for the higher part. These were placed at the highest point of a citadel and from surviving depictions were high, perhaps with gabled roofs; their emphasis on verticality has been claimed as an influence of later Christian Armenian architecture.[84]
The art of Urartu is especially notable for fine lost-wax bronze objects: weapons, figurines, vessels including grand cauldrons that were used for sacrifices, fittings for furniture, and helmets. There are also remains of ivory and bone carvings, frescos, cylinder seals and of course pottery. In general their style is a somewhat less sophisticated blend of influences from neighbouring cultures. Archaeology has produced relatively few examples of the jewellery in precious metals that the Assyrians boasted of carrying off in great quantities from Musasir in 714 BC.[84]
Religion
A modern depiction of the god Ḫaldi based on Urartian originals
The Urartian pantheon seems to have comprised a diverse mix of Hurrian, Akkadian, Armenian, and Hittite deities.[85]
Starting with the reign of Ishpuini, the Urartian pantheon was headed by a triad made up of Ḫaldi (the supreme god), Theispas (Teisheba, god of thunder and storms, as well as sometimes war), and Shivini (a solar god). Their king was also the chief-priest or envoy of Ḫaldi. Some temples to Ḫaldi were part of the royal palace complex, while others were independent structures.
With the expansion of Urartian territory, many of the gods worshipped by conquered peoples were incorporated into the Urartian pantheon as a means of confirming the annexation of territories and promoting political stability. Some main gods and goddesses of the Urartian pantheon include:[86]
Ḫaldi was not a native Urartian god but apparently an obscure Akkadian deity (which explains the location of the main temple of worship for Ḫaldi in Musasir, believed to be near modern Rawandiz, Iraq).[87] Ḫaldi was not initially worshiped by the Urartians as their chief god. His cult does not appear to have been introduced until the reign of Ishpuini.[87]
Theispas was a version of the Hurrian god, Teshub.[88]
According to Diakonoff and Vyacheslav Ivanov, Shivini (likely pronounced Shiwini or Siwini) was likely borrowed from the Hittites.[89]
On the Gate of Mehr (Mehri-Dur), overlooking modern Van, an inscription lists a total of 79 deities, and what type of sacrificial offerings should be made to each; goats, sheep, cattle, and other animals served as the sacrificial offerings. Urartians did not practice human sacrifice.[90]
A number of the gods mentioned in the Gate of Mehr may be of Armenian origins,[85] including Ara (or Arwaa),[91] and possibly the goddess Selardi (although there is confusion about this deity's gender and name, some believe it is to be read Melardi).[91][92][93]
It has been suggested that the Urartian pantheon could correspond to mountain peaks located within the Armenian Highlands.[94]
Language
The modern name of the written language used by the kingdom's political elite is Urartian; the language is attested in numerous cuneiform inscriptions throughout Armenia and eastern Turkey. It is unknown what other languages were spoken by the peoples of Urartu under the Kingdom of Van, but there is evidence of linguistic contact between the proto-Armenian language and the Urartian language at an early date (sometime between the 3rd—2nd millennium BC), before the formation of the kingdom.[3][95][96][73][97]
Urartians used Assyrian language, script, and form in building inscriptions.[2] This language and script was used until the late ninth century BC when the Urartian language was used.[2]
"Urartian" is the modern name for the extinct language used in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Kingdom of Urartu. Its only known relative is Hurrian; together they form the small Hurro-Urartian language family. Other names used to refer to the language are "Khaldian" ("Ḫaldian"), or "neo-Hurrian". The latter term is considered problematic, however, as it is now thought that Urartian and Hurrian share a common ancestor; formerly, it was thought that Urartian was descended from, or a dialect of, Hurrian.[71] In fact, according to Paul Zimansky:
The earliest dialect of Hurrian, seen in the Tiš-atal royal inscription and reconstructed from various early second millennium B.C.E. sources, shows features that disappeared in later Hurrian but are present in Urartian (Wilhelm 1988:63). In short, the more we discover or deduce about the earliest stages of Hurrian, the more it looks like Urartian (Gragg 1995:2170).
Examples of the Urartian language have survived in many inscriptions, written in the Assyrian cuneiform script, found throughout the area of the Kingdom of Urartu. Although, the bulk of the cuneiform inscriptions within Urartu were written in the Urartian language, a minority of them were also written in Akkadian (the official language of Assyria).
There are also claims of autochthonous Urartian hieroglyphs, but this remains uncertain.[98] Unlike the cuneiform inscriptions, Urartian hieroglyphs have not been successfully deciphered. As a result, scholars disagree as to what language is used, or whether they even constitute writing at all. The Urartians originally would have used these locally developed hieroglyphs, but later adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for most purposes. After the 8th century BC, the hieroglyphic script would have been restricted to religious and accounting purposes.[clarification needed]
The Kingdom of Urartu, during its dominance, had united disparate tribes, each of which had its own culture and traditions. Thus, when the political structure was destroyed, little remained that could be identified as one unified Urartian culture.[99] According to Zimansky:[100]
Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, [Urartu] was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings.
Ultimately, little is known of what was truly spoken in the geopolitical region until the creation of the Armenian alphabet in the 4th century AD. Some scholars believe that the ethnonym "Armina" itself and all other names attested with reference to the rebellions against Darius in the Satrapy of Armenia (the proper names Araxa, Haldita, and Dādṛšiš, the toponyms Zūzahya, Tigra, and Uyamā, and the district name Autiyāra) are not connected with Armenian linguistic and onomastic material attested later in native Armenian sources, nor are they Iranian, but seem related to Urartian.[101] However, others suggest that some of these names have Armenian or Iranian etymologies.[63][102][103]
The presence of a population who spoke Proto-Armenian in Urartu prior to its demise is subject to speculation, but the existence of Urartian words in the Armenian language and Armenian loanwords into Urartian[104] suggests early contact between the two languages and long periods of bilingualism.[9][35] The presence of toponyms, tribal names, and deities of probable Proto-Armenian etymologies which are attested in records left by Urartian kings, such as Uelikuni, Uduri-Etiuni, Abiliani, and Arzashkun, the personal names Arame and Diaṣuni, and the deities Arṣibedini and Aniqu, further supports the presence of an Armenian speaking population in at least the northern regions of Urartu.[105][104][106][9][35][107][85] The Urartian confederation united the disparate peoples of the highlands, which began a process of intermingling of the peoples and cultures (probably including Armenian tribes) and languages (probably including Proto-Armenian) within the highlands. This intermixing would ultimately culminate in the emergence of the Armenian language as the dominant language within the region.[73]
A theory, supported by the official historiography of Armenia and experts in Assyrian and Urartian studies such as Igor M. Diakonoff, Giorgi Melikishvili, Mikhail Nikolsky, and Ivan Mestchaninov, suggests that Urartian was solely the formal written language of the state, while its inhabitants, including the royal family, spoke Proto-Armenian. This theory primarily hinges on the fact that the Urartian language used in the cuneiform inscriptions were very repetitive and scant in vocabulary (having as little as 350–400 roots). Furthermore, over 250 years of usage, it shows no development, which is taken to indicate that the language had ceased to be spoken before the time of the inscriptions or was used only for official purposes.[citation needed]
A complementary theory, suggested by Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in 1984, places the Proto-Indo-European homeland (the location where Indo-European would have emerged from) in the Armenian Highlands, which would entail the presence of proto-Armenians in the area during the entire lifetime of the Urartian state.[108] Although this theory has less support than the more popular Kurgan hypothesis, the Armenian hypothesis would support the theory that the Urartian language was not spoken, but simply written, and postulates that the Armenian language was an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language.[108]
I Found Pyramids & the Oldest Monolithic Calendar in the Americas Using Google Earth!
Join me as I verify what I believed were pyramids I saw on Google Earth, and end up stumbling upon what just might be the oldest stone calendar in the Americas. It's a bold claim that I have yet to find information to disprove - this site, being attributed to the Norte Chico culture in Peru (aka Caral-Supe) would mean it was constructed circa 3,500 - 3,000 BCE, and therefore the monolithic stone calendar would indeed be the OLDEST in the Western hemisphere. The Caral-Supe culture built massive stone pyramids over a thousand years before the current dating of the pyramids of Giza in Egypt. There are Native American "wood-henges" that have celestial alignments, but this here in Peru is monolithic stone. Special thanks to an amazing impromptu guide, Luis, who humbly and unexpectedly led me through the site, highlighting its significance and historical context.
The moon looking particularly large (and red) against the backdrop of a Spanish city in June 2020.
Image credit: Ivan Morato photography/Shutterstock.com
The moon illusion baffled the great philosophers of ancient Greece and the most brilliant minds of the Scientific Revolution – and it continues to defy a solid explanation.
Have you ever noticed the Moon looks bigger when it's rising or setting? This is the Moon illusion, an optical misperception that causes the moon to appear larger near the horizon than it does higher up in the sky.
Aristotle is often said to have pondered this effect way back in the 4th century BCE. He attributed it to the magnifying properties of Earth’s atmosphere. So his theory goes: when the Moon is viewed on the horizon, the light has to pass through more of the dense atmosphere, which expands it like a magnifying glass.
This is not a totally ridiculous thing to believe, unlike some of Aristotle’s ideas, although we now know the Moon illusion is a trick of the human visual system, not the strange workings of planetary systems.
The Moon may appear different sizes to the naked eye, but you can simply use a ruler to measure photographs of the Moon and show that it remains the same width on any given night, regardless of whether it’s hugging the horizon or if it’s cruising high in the night sky.
Like many other optical illusions, the conundrum is likely to be an issue of context and perspective. Most modern explanations agree that the Moon illusion plays with our brain’s inability to grasp the size and distance of unusual objects like the Moon, although it’s not certain how and why this occurs.
One theory is that objects on the horizon – trees, mountains, and buildings – give the impression that the Moon is closer and, therefore, we perceive it as bigger in size. When the Moon is high in the sky, without any nearby visual reference points, we perceive it as being further away and, thereby, smaller.
The Ponzo illusion: both horizontal lines are the same size, although the distorted sense of perspective make it seem otherwise.
We see a similar effect in the famous Ponzo illusion, in which two identical lines appear to be different lengths due to the context of converging lines. The wider setting of the image makes the brain perceive the upper line as farther away and larger, even though both lines are the same size in reality. Imagine the illustration and flip it upside down; maybe something similar is occurring with the Moon illusion.
Then again, perhaps it’s more a question of size, rather than distance. When the Moon is placed next to familiar objects on the horizon, we can appreciate its vast size and it appears huge. When its high in the sky, there are no familiar objects for context, it doesn’t appear so imposing and seems smaller.
However, as NASA explains, these aren’t perfect explanations. They note that astronauts in orbit also experience the Moon illusion yet they don’t have the same problem with foreground objects on the horizon that skew our sense of distance and size.
Left with only a loose explanation of the Moon illusion, NASA takes a surprisingly chill approach to the dilemma: “In the absence of a complete explanation for why we see it like that, we can still agree that – real or illusion – a giant Moon is a beautiful sight.”
“So, until someone puzzles out exactly what our brains are up to, it's probably best to just enjoy the Moon illusion, and the moody, atmospheric, and sometimes downright haunting vistas it creates,” they add.
Archeological research suggests first cities of humanity were in Ukraine, not in Mesopotamia
Massive planned settlements discovered in Ukraine, dating back to 4000 BCE, are rewriting the history of early urbanization. These sprawling sites are forcing archaeologists to reconsider when, where, and how the first cities emerged.
Recent archaeological developments in Ukraine are rewriting the history of early urbanization. Massive planned settlements, dating back to 4000 BCE, challenge the long-held belief that the first cities emerged in Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq, and parts of Iran, Türkiye, Syria, and Kuwait.
Aspublishedin the Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung, new archeological research suggests that the first urban settlements in present-day Ukraine are much older than previously assumed.
These so-called Megasites (from the Greek word “mega” for something large and from the English word “site,” which refers to an archaeological site) reveal complex societies that flourished for centuries before disappearing around 3600 BCE.
Their existence not only pushes back the timeline of urban development, but also sparks heated debates about early social organization, sustainability, and the very definition of a city.
Key points:
Discovery: Found in the 1960s through aerial photography and confirmed by geomagnetic surveys
Age: Dated to around 4000 BCE, predating Mesopotamian cities by centuries
Size: Ranging from 30 to 320 hectares, with the largest comparable to Monaco
Layout: Planned settlements with houses arranged in concentric rings
Culture: Part of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, known for distinctive pottery
Duration: Each settlement lasted about 200 years, with the phenomenon persisting for 500 years
Decline: Disappeared around 3600 BCE for reasons still debated
Map showing the approximate maximal extent of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture (all periods), overlaid on contemporary borders. Photo via Wikimedia.
For decades, archaeologists believed that the first cities in human history emerged around 3800 BCE in Mesopotamia, in what is now Iraq. These early urban centers were characterized by thousands of people living in close proximity, sustained by food produced in the surrounding hinterland, engaged in trade, and governed by a complex administration.
However, recent archaeological discoveries are challenging this long-held belief. In Ukraine, researchers have uncovered evidence of settlements dating back to 4000 BCE that reached sizes of up to 320 hectares, and may have housed more than 10,000 people.
These findings shift our understanding of early urbanization and reveal how archaeologists can develop entirely different narratives about the past from the same material evidence.
Discovery of the Megasites
The story of these settlements’ discovery begins in the 1960s Soviet Union. A military topographer named Konstantin Shishkin was examining aerial photographs of Ukraine when he noticed peculiar shadows on the ground. These shadows, visible only from the air, were caused by differences in plant growth due to buried archaeological remains. Plant roots could penetrate deeper into the soil where there was once a ditch, resulting in taller growth. Conversely, where roots encountered stones, the stems remained shorter.
These growth patterns were arranged in concentric circles, strongly suggesting human-made structures beneath the soil. Shishkin discovered such features at 250 locations, some covering areas of more than 300 hectares. He hypothesized that these were prehistoric settlements.
To verify these findings, Ukrainian scientists began a large-scale research campaign in 1971 using a method that was just being developed in archaeology: geomagnetics. This technique measures very slight variations in the Earth’s magnetic field caused by structures hidden in the ground and the iron particles they contain.
Although labor-intensive, especially with the equipment available in the 1970s, the method allowed researchers to map large areas much more quickly than traditional excavation techniques.
The Cucuteni-Trypillia culture
The settlements discovered belong to what archaeologists call the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, named after two early find sites: Cucuteni in Romania and Trypillia in Ukraine, 40 kilometers south of Kyiv. This culture is known for its distinctive pottery – yellowish clay vessels decorated with geometric patterns and curved lines. The culture’s influence extended across a vast area, reaching into present-day Moldova.
Characteristic example of Cucuteni–Trypillia pottery. Photo via Wikimedia.
While settlements of various sizes have been found throughout this region, the truly massive sites – what archaeologists term Megasites – are concentrated in Ukraine, along the northern edge of the Pontic Steppe. At least 140 settlements larger than 10 hectares have been identified, with the largest reaching sizes of over 100 hectares.
Structure, layout, and architecture of the Megasites
The layout of these settlements is strikingly different from the organic growth patterns seen in many historical cities. Viewed from above, the Megasites are circular or oval, with houses neatly arranged in concentric rings. These rings are regularly interrupted by wide corridors, and the center is typically an open, unbuilt space.
This orderly arrangement clearly indicates planning. The settlements were not allowed to grow haphazardly; instead, plots were marked out and gradually built upon.These are, in effect, the world’s first planned cities.The smallest Megasites cover about 30 hectares, while the largest spans 3.2 square kilometers, larger than the principality of Monaco and almost as large as New York’s Central Park.
Reconstruction of the main occupation phase of the Cucuteni-Trypillia Megasite at Maidanets’ke ca. 3800 BC. Photo via Wikimedia/Susanne Beyer.
The houses in these settlements were constructed from wood and clay, not unlike modern half-timbered buildings. While there’s debate about whether they were one or two stories tall and whether the gables were pointed or arched, the houses were remarkably similar to each other in many respects. They were often of similar size, typically about 5 meters wide and 14 meters long. Johannes Müller, an archaeologist from the University of Kiel who has been researching these sites since 2011, describes the architecture as reminiscent of Lego, suggesting a modular system of construction.
Intriguingly, the houses were eventually burned down, not by attackers during a conflict, but in a regulated manner by their inhabitants. The motivation for this practice remains a matter of speculation.
Society and social structure of Trypilian Megasites
The nature of the society that built and inhabited these Megasites is a subject of intense debate among archaeologists. Their interpretations vary widely, highlighting how the same archaeological evidence can lead to very different conclusions about past societies.
Some archaeologists, including Mykhailo Videiko from the University of Kyiv, favor a more traditional view. They argue that as societies grow larger, social differences inevitably increase. Videiko sees evidence in the large Trypillia settlements for a hierarchical social order with a chieftain at the top.
This interpretation also draws on the theory proposed by Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas between 1974 and 1991, which posited that European society was originally female-centered, matriarchal, and peaceful, worshiping a “Great Goddess.” According to this view, patriarchy only became dominant with the immigration of Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age.
Videiko and like-minded colleagues interpret the numerous terracotta figurines found in the Megasites as representations of female deities. They suggest that the large, prominent buildings (termed Megastructures) found in these settlements weretemples dedicated to these goddesses.
In stark contrast, the group led by Johannes Müller in Kiel sees no evidence for such hierarchies or religious structures. Instead, Müller interprets the Megastructures ascommunal assembly houseswhere decisions were made collectively. Given the similarity of the residential homes and the lack of evidence for institutionalized social differences throughout the settlement, Müller’s team proposes an egalitarian society.
They suggest that people moved to these large settlements from the surrounding areas, effectively depopulating the regions around them. This maximalist model estimates the population by counting the number of houses and multiplying by an estimated 5-10 inhabitants per household, arriving at figures between 5,000 and 15,000 inhabitants.
A third interpretation, proposed by John Chapman from Durham University and his colleague Bisserka Gaydarska, suggests a different scenario altogether. Based on experimental archaeology and analysis of ancient plant pollen, they argue that the settlements were not permanently inhabited by large populations. Instead, they propose that the Megasites were used seasonally aspilgrimage centers,where people from the surrounding area gathered once a year to perform rituals and celebrate festivals.
Environmental impact and sustainability of Trypillia Megasites
Researchers also disagree on the Megasites’ environmental impact. Müller’s team, based on soil analyses, concludes that the inhabitants practiced sustainable agriculture and animal husbandry. They argue that while significant deforestation was undertaken to meet the settlements’ wood needs, leading to the expansion of the steppe, the ecological carrying capacity was never exceeded. In fact, they suggest that the clearing of forests actually improved soil conditions, contributing to the formation of the highly fertile chernozem (black earth) soils.
Chernozem, illustrative image. Photo via Wikimedia.
Chapman and Gaydarska, on the other hand, argue that if all the houses had been in use simultaneously and subsequently burned down, the amount of wood required would have necessitated extensive forests. However, they find no evidence of such large-scale deforestation or intensive grain cultivation (which would have been necessary to feed thousands of people) in the 6,000-year-old plant pollen samples from the soil.
Regina Uhl, a researcher at the German Archaeological Institute specializing in the prehistoric archaeology of the Black Sea region, takes a more cautious stance. She points out that the carbon-14 dating method, which the Kiel archaeologists use to estimate how many houses were inhabited simultaneously, is imprecise for the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, with potential variations of up to 150-200 years. This makes it impossible to determine with certainty whether all houses were inhabited at the same time, although it also doesn’t rule out this possibility.
Were the Trypillia Megasites actually cities?
The designation of these settlements as cities is also a matter of debate. Traditionally, the Mesopotamian city of Uruk was considered the world’s first city. In the 4th millennium BCE, Uruk was home to people who did not have to engage in agriculture themselves – true urbanites.
They obtained their food from the surrounding hinterland, had a ruling elite, monumental architecture, and an administrative system that included the development of writing. For a long time, archaeologists considered these features essential characteristics of a city.
A 3D model of Maidanetske from the Trypillia Culture. Photo via Wikimedia.
The Trypillia settlements, however, exhibit none of these features. Nevertheless, Johannes Müller now considers them cities. He argues that the key feature of a city is not its size, but rather a concept and planning that is evident from the beginning. Moreover, he suggests that a crucial aspect of urban life is that one doesn’t know all the people living in the same settlement, even those just 1.5 kilometers away.
The end of the Trypillia Megasites
Around 3600 BCE, the Megasites disappeared. The reason for their abandonment is another mystery, with no evidence of conflicts, violence, or external invasion. The cause seems to have been internal.
Müller sees the end of the Megasite phenomenon as connected to their egalitarian structure. He suggests that over time, decisions were made by increasingly smaller groups, as evidenced by the disappearance of smaller assembly houses. Meanwhile, population numbers were rising, necessitating new forms of communication and administration.
Unlike in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, where writing developed independently due to administrative needs, the people of the Megasites did not invent writing. They may have used a system of tokens for counting, but this apparently wasn’t sufficient for managing their large, complex societies.
The Trypillia Megasites represent an intriguing chapter in human history, challenging our understanding of early urbanization and social complexity. Their significance can be summarized in several key points:
Rewriting history: They push back the timeline of large-scale, planned settlements by centuries.
Complexity: They demonstrate sophisticated planning and organization in Neolithic Europe.
Longevity: The phenomenon persisted for 500 years, longer than many later social orders.
Mystery: Despite extensive research, many aspects of these settlements remain debated and poorly understood.
Ongoing research: As Regina Uhl states,“We’re not done with it yet,”highlighting the continuing importance of these sites in archaeological research.
The Trypillia Megasites offer a glimpse into a complex, organized society that existed in Eastern Europe millennia before the rise of classical civilizations. As research continues, they may well rewrite our understanding of the origins of urban life and social complexity in Europe and beyond, reminding us that the path of human development is far more diverse and complex than we once believed.
From above, Kodiak Island, off the southern coast of Alaska, looks pristine, with lush greenery and stunning mountains touching the clouds. As Boston University archaeology studentTrevor Lambglided over the island in a small 4-seat floatplane, he felt anticipation and awe. On the ground below, he knew, were precious archaeological sites, rich with information about the past—and he was there to get his hands in the dirt.
Trevor Lamb, a BU PhD student, worked on a plot of land where a house had stood about 3,200 years ago; he dug for details about how plants fit into the diets of indigenous hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Lamb (GRS’25) traveled from Boston to the city of Kodiak, then took a floatplane to a remote area of the island, where he joined a team brought together by the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository.The Alutiiq/Sugpiaq peoplehave inhabited this part of Alaska for over 7,500 years, with historical records and artifacts revealing much about their lives—including the tools they used for hunting and fishing, how their homes were built, and much more. Lamb, a PhD student in Boston University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences anthropology department, is particularly interested in discovering details about the diet of their hunter-gatherer ancestors. Specifically, how plants fit into the diets of people who relied on meat and seafood for sustenance.
“People who lived on the coast largely depended on the ocean for food,” Lamb says. “But there is traditional knowledge and historical accounts about particular plant foods that were also really important.”Chocolate lily roots, for example, were once an important food and are still found throughout coastal Alaska, though they’re not as commonly eaten due to the time it takes to find and prepare them. (Lamb has never tasted one but, allegedly, they taste like mashed potatoes.)
On Kodiak, Lamb hoped to find clues that help create a more complete picture of what people ate—and unexpectedly stumbled on ways plants were used other than for food.
Roots of Complexity
During his master’s work at the University of New Brunswick studying ancestral Passamaquoddy sites in northern Maine, Lamb noticed that anthropologists and archaeologists weren’t as tuned in to the ways hunter-gatherers were eating and using traditional plants. For his doctorate, he changed focus from the Northeast to the Northwest to expand his reach, prompting his PhD dissertation project, “Roots of Complexity: Tubers, Cuisine, and Surplus Production in the North Pacific.” He is now training to become a paleoethnobotanist, someone who studies how people used plants in the past.
“Growing up in Massachusetts, my parents and I would go to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and look at all the things from around the world, and over time that really got me interested in the story of North America and indigenous people of North America,” Lamb says. “It’s important to me to understand the full history and the different stories of people that have lived here, and continue to live here.”
At the site in Kodiak, he and a team of local archaeologists and scholars from other universities started digging. They worked on a plot of land on the shores of Karluk Lake where a house had stood about 3,200 years ago, the outline of the dwelling still visible, a patch of dirt noticeably darker from where fires were once lit to cook. Their goal was to unearth any remaining traces of the house and clues about how people lived at that particular time in history. The land is now owned byKoniag, one of the 12 regional Alaska Native corporations established by Congress in 1971.
It became clear as they were digging that this house likely burned down, collapsing to the ground in flames.
“Everything was very charred, and we kept finding burned structural timbers,” Lamb says. Burning can actually be good for preservation. One of the key ingredients of Lamb’s research is analyzing burned food that remains stuck on broken pottery, and burned fragments of roots and fuelwood preserved in roasting pits. If any food happens to burn while cooking in a clay pot, small starch grains are trapped inside the burned residue. Similarly, burned root vegetables—like potatoes, carrots, and chocolate lily roots—hold up particularly well in the remains of subterranean roasting pits that last underground for thousands of years.
Remnants of a roasting pit, like this one seen at the site on the shores of Karluk Lake, are critical pieces of evidence that allow Lamb to study ancient plant foods.
In studying hunter-gatherer communities, “plants are almost invisible unless you look at those burnt remains,” Lamb says, since organic matter decays and disappears quickly in the ground. He carefully scrapes off the pottery residues, then burned plant fragments are later put under a microscope and identified through comparison with modern reference plants located at BU’sEnvironmental Archaeology Lab(EAL). Some residues are selected for stable isotope analysis at BU’sStable Isotope Laboratory, which involves identifying chemical signatures that give scientists information about the chemical composition—which in Lamb’s case, indicates the types of food mixed together to create meals. Samples collected from roasting pits are also analyzed at EAL through a process called floatation, which is when a sample is dumped into a water tank and gravity separates buoyant ancient burned plants from the dense soil, as well as fuelwood, seeds, and fragments of roots that are typically present.
Archaeologists working on Kodiak Island have found countless stone tools, knives, and traditional fishing net sinkers called Ulus, signaling to experts that hunter-gatherers were using tools to increase their bounty with the intention of storing food for the winter, and to host elaborate parties to show their wealth. This is called surplus production, Lamb says, and it’s unclear how carbohydrate-rich plants were stockpiled. He hopes to figure out if roots were part of surplus production on Kodiak, and which plants were eaten solely for sustenance or as an added flavor or to season a meal.
Surprise Discovery
Back at the field site, Lamb was digging and sampling more charred material, when he noticed bits of blackened grass scattered in the dirt. On further inspection, he discovered whole pieces of woven grass that were surprisingly intact.
“These may well be theoldest woven textiles ever recovered on Kodiak Island,” says Patrick Saltonstall, Alutiiq Museum’s curator of archaeology who led the excavation. “The significance of the 3,000-year-old weavings is that they are so similar to weavings from just 200 years ago. This demonstrates remarkable technological continuity over the last 3,000 years.”
Lamb discovered whole pieces of woven grass—possibly the oldest woven textiles ever recovered on Kodiak Island.
He and other experts suspect the woven textiles were used as grass floor mats. Saltonstall says that these textiles were found in remarkable shape because of the way the house had burned—the roof had collapsed onto the floor, limiting the oxygen fueling the fire and leaving the weavings charred instead of burned into ash. The textiles will likely be displayed in the future and used for research purposes at the Alutiiq Museum where they are being conserved. “It was an awesome find and I feel very lucky to have been able to be there for that,” Lamb says.
Lamb, along withCatherine F. West, a BU College of Arts & Sciences research associate professor of archaeology and anthropology, has helped further archaeological research on Kodiak a great deal, Saltonstall says. West has been collaborating with the Alutiiq Museum for the last 20 years and is Lamb’s PhD advisor.
“Because he was closely looking for charred plant remains, Trevor was the first to recognize the woven charred grass textiles,” Saltonstall says. “He was also the one who carefully collected all the pieces we could find. His expertise in such matters was critical to the material making it back to the lab in such good shape.”
Lamb will be analyzing the loose, less-woven fragments of the fabric to figure out what type of plants were used to make the grass matting, and if the plants could have been used for basketry to store root plants. He’s also studying samples taken from the cooking pits on the site that hopefully can provide more knowledge about how plants were used in ancient households.
To complement the findings from Kodiak, Lamb will visit University of Wisconsin–Madison for a month to work with hundreds of pottery shards excavated in the 1950s and 1960s from Kodiak. He’s also visiting the University of Washington for samples excavated in Kodiak during the 1990s. He’ll be bringing them back to BU—temporarily—for analysis.
“There’s still a lot more to learn from all of the burnt material,” he says.
Lamb’s dissertation work is funded by the National Science Foundation.
Jessica Colarossi
Science Writer
Jessica Colarossiis a science writer forThe Brink. She graduated with a BS in journalism from Emerson College in 2016, with focuses on environmental studies and publishing. While a student, she interned at ThinkProgress in Washington, D.C., where she wrote over 30 stories, most of them relating to climate change, coral reefs, and women’s health.Profile
Space and Physics
